Technical note| Volume 45, P170-176, January 2018

Download started.


Quantifying the performance of two different types of commercial software programs for 3D patient dose reconstruction for prostate cancer patients: Machine log files vs. machine log files with EPID images


      • We compared two different 3D dose reconstruction techniques.
      • Mobius and PerFRACTION were used.
      • PerFRACTION had wider range of dose difference for in vivo dosimetry.


      We clarified the reconstructed 3D dose difference between two different commercial software programs (Mobius3D v2.0 and PerFRACTION v1.6.4).
      Five prostate cancer patients treated with IMRT (74 Gy/37 Fr) were studied. Log files and cine EPID images were acquired for each fraction. 3D patient dose was reconstructed using log files (Mobius3D) or log files with EPID imaging (PerFRACTION). The treatment planning dose was re-calculated on homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms, and log files and cine EPID images were acquired. Measured doses were compared with the reconstructed point doses in the phantom. Next, we compared dosimetric metrics (mean dose for PTV, rectum, and bladder) calculated by Mobius3D and PerFRACTION for all fractions from five patients.
      Dose difference at isocenter between measurement and reconstructed dose for two software programs was within 3.0% in both homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Moreover, the dose difference was larger using skip arc plan than that using full arc plan, especially for PerFRACTION (e.g., dose difference at isocenter for PerFRACTION: 0.34% for full arc plan vs. −4.50% for skip arc plan in patient 1).
      For patients, differences in dosimetric parameters were within 1% for almost all fractions. PerFRACTION had wider range of dose difference between first fraction and the other fractions than Mobius3D (e.g., maximum difference: 0.50% for Mobius3D vs. 1.85% for PerFRACTION), possibly because EPID may detect some types of MLC positioning errors such as miscalibration errors or mechanical backlash which cannot be detected by log files, or that EPID data might include image acquisition failure and image noise.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Low D.A.
        • Harms W.B.
        • Mutic S.
        • et al.
        A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions.
        Med Phys. 1998; 25: 656-661
        • Kruse J.J.
        On the insensitivity of single field planar dosimetry to IMRT inaccuracies.
        Med Phys. 2010; 37: 2516-2524
        • Zhen H.
        • Nelms B.E.
        • Tome W.A.
        Moving from gamma passing rates to patient DVH-based QA metrics in pretreatment dose QA.
        Med Phys. 2011; 38: 5477-5489
        • Carrasco P.
        • Jornet N.
        • Latorre A.
        • et al.
        3D DVH-based metric analysis versus per-beam planar analysis in IMRT pretreatment verification.
        Med Phys. 2012; 39: 5040-5049
        • Calvo-Ortega J.F.
        • Teke T.
        • Moragues S.
        • et al.
        A Varian DynaLog file-based procedure for patient dose-volume histogram-based IMRT QA.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15: 4665
        • Visser R.
        • Wauben D.J.
        • de Groot M.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of DVH-based treatment plan verification in addition to gamma passing rates for head and neck IMRT.
        Radiother Oncol. 2014; 112: 389-395
        • Sun B.
        • Rangaraj D.
        • Boddu S.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of independent dose calculation followed by machine log file analysis against conventional measurement based IMRT QA.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012; 13: 3837
        • Tyagi N.
        • Yang K.
        • Yan D.
        Comparing measurement-derived (3DVH) and machine log file-derived dose reconstruction methods for VMAT QA in patient geometries.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15: 4645
        • McDonald D.G.
        • Jacqmin D.J.
        • Mart C.J.
        • et al.
        Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18: 170-177
        • Ahmed S.
        • Hunt D.
        • Kapatoes J.
        • et al.
        Validation of a GPU-Based 3D dose calculator for modulated beams.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18: 73-82
        • Katsuta Y.
        • Kadoya N.
        • Fujita Y.
        • et al.
        Quantification of residual dose estimation error on log file-based patient dose calculation.
        Phys Med. 2016; 32: 701-705
        • Katsuta Y.
        • Kadoya N.
        • Fujita Y.
        • et al.
        Clinical impact of dosimetric changes for volumetric modulated arc therapy in log file-based patient dose calculations.
        Phys Med. 2017; 42: 1-6
        • Clemente-Gutierrez F.
        • Perez-Vara C.
        • Clavo-Herranz M.H.
        • et al.
        Assessment of radiobiological metrics applied to patient-specific QA process of VMAT prostate treatments.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2016; 17: 341-367
        • Ahnesjo A.
        Collapsed cone convolution of radiant energy for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media.
        Med Phys. 1989; 16: 577-592
        • Xia P.
        • Chuang C.F.
        • Verhey L.J.
        Communication and sampling rate limitations in IMRT delivery with a dynamic multileaf collimator system.
        Med Phys. 2002; 29: 412-423
        • Feuvret L.
        • Noel G.
        • Mazeron J.J.
        • et al.
        Conformity index: a review.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006; 64: 333-342
        • Fraass B.
        • Doppke K.
        • Hunt M.
        • et al.
        American Association of Physicists in Medicine Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning.
        Med Phys. 1998; 25: 1773-1829
        • McCurdy B.M.
        • Greer P.B.
        Dosimetric properties of an amorphous-silicon EPID used in continuous acquisition mode for application to dynamic and arc IMRT.
        Med Phys. 2009; 36: 3028-3039
        • Neal B.
        • Ahmed M.
        • Kathuria K.
        • et al.
        A clinically observed discrepancy between image-based and log-based MLC positions.
        Med Phys. 2016; 43: 2933
        • Defoor D.L.
        • Vazquez-Quino L.A.
        • Mavroidis P.
        • et al.
        Anatomy-based, patient-specific VMAT QA using EPID or MLC log files.
        J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16: 5283